查询 TAPD bug 变更历史

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral details: status changes include Chinese workflow names, and include_add_bug=true returns creation records. These go beyond annotations, though pagination behavior is not described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and covers key usage, parameters, and special output in three sentences. No redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 10 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description explains the required mutual exclusivity, filtering, sorting, and special behavior for status changes. It lacks explicit pagination or return format details, but these are implied by parameter descriptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of bug_id/created/id, the effect of include_add_bug, and the workflow name output for status changes—details not in schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool queries TAPD bug change history, specifying the resource ('bug changes') and the action ('查询'). It distinguishes from siblings like tapd_list_bugs (list bugs) and tapd_list_story_changes (story changes) by focusing on bugs and history.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states the required parameter condition ('bug_id, created, id 至少提供一个'), filters, and sorting. It implies usage for bug change history, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. However, siblings like tapd_list_bugs for listing bugs provide clear differentiation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.